(Almost) Back to Arts and Cats

Welllll... I am still watching and waiting to see what Parliament is going to look like when it resumes.

Seems we have a St. Michael to redeem the Liberals, the way has been cleared. I keep mentally composing nasty letters to my Conservative MP, who won this region by I kid you not, 17 votes, and he knows it. He won because 17 hockey parents had things to do with their kids and assumed their incumbent was secure. I want to demand that he be the voice of THIS constituent and tell his leader to smarten up.

CBC has this interesting musing, with no conclusions, but reflects alot of my thinking on a key decision that led us here://http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/05/f-vp-mallick.html

And, lest this blog wander off from the real world entirely, there is still some crafty stuff going on. Around Waterloo this weekend?



I'll be there, with yarn!

What Happened, What's Next?

This sure seems to be NaBloPoWe (NationalBlogPostingWeek) for us newfound political junkies. Tonight I'm posting about yesterday, and have ever more questions than answers.... I'm afraid I may have run out of articulate, as well, as most of what I've been able to do about yesterday is babble a little twitchily.

Yesterday, at the request of our somewhat ill-behaved Prime Minister, the Governor General of Canada prorogued, or suspended, the Parliament of Canada, ending its first session only two weeks in. This was one of several possible outcomes of the chaos which began, well, really, a couple years back with Prime Minister Harper's first term, but in the past week or so since the first economic statement of this Parliament.

As many have pointed out, by Constitutional Convention, the Governor General does not share her reasoning on this and the message is relayed by the Prime Minister advising of what decision she made. Thus, Her Excellency Michaelle Jean remains a bit of an enigma to many, in this. I am sure her thoughts were deep and she had the advice of the most educated minds on this topic that our country and possibly others could offer. I, like all our elected Members and the Party Leaders must accept the decision and we really cannot speculate about her reasoning and motivation. I was pleased to see all leaders display the decorum to accept her authority implicitly and offer no criticism of her or her office. But I'm not sure it was the best action for this time.

I had to agree with Jack Layton's statement in reaction, that this is a sad day for Parliamentary Democracy. The Governor General's powers in this matter are the highest power in our Government, and they can alter the very structure of our democratic model itself. Yesterday, they were applied in a way which allowed a Member of Parliament, who is also Prime Minister, who is acting in a very partisan manner, to postpone the democratic and legitimate censure by his peers in the House of Commons, which he knew was coming. It is my understanding from all the reading, watching and listening I have been doing that this use of the power to prorogue Parliament is unprecedented, which means this has never been done in a Parliamentary Democracy before. Thus, this in effect alters the nature of democracy as it is implemented in Canada, and I don't feel it is a good alteration.

What sort of functional Parliament can we have if an embattled Prime Minister who cannot garner the support of the elected representatives (for again, it is the MPs, NOT the PM or Government, who we elected) can just pack up, slam the doors, and not only avoid, but PROHIBIT the continuing operation of the Parliament of Canada just because he faces a challenge he may lose?

It is now a done deal. This is a matter which I feel warrants deep and serious study and reflection. In some ways, the trust of the office of Governor General is diminished in this, for this defends not the entity which is Canada and its democratic structure, but merely one dysfunctional and partisan government, the progress of which should be up to the elected Members. I am disappointed, and should it ever come to light that Her Excellency made this decision to save face (hers or anyone else's) I will be ashamed. It was a no-win situation and no one would have been able to satisfy all with any decision, but better for her to leave office in disfavour (as Governors General have, at times) having made a decision for the good of Canada and democracy than to have decided in Mr. Harper's favour out of any wish for self-preservation or to take the least challenging path. In most ways, the appointment of Governor General is ceremonial, but in these key, critical ways, it is to be a sacrifice to democracy itself, if needed.

Only time will tell if this is going to work out or not for the 40th Parliament of Canada, and only more time will tell what effect this precedent has on the implemenation of democratic Parliaments here and around the world.

One thing I hope is that this is not the end of our interest in the matter, and that the Canadian people use the time between now and January 26th to learn, examine, and reflect and hopefully realize what here is truly democratic and what is not.

Commentary is appreciated, but I do wish to respond.

I had alot to do today, but have become aware that at least a few more people besides my blood relations and knitting pals have been by this way. This is cool! And I got another comment yesterday, also cool. But I feel this added something to my to-do list, and my intended blog du jour is now different because I want to respond to my commenter. Mary has added a new challenge to my blog, for I think this is the first comment seeking to argue with me and with which I, in turn, will argue.

Before I do so I wish to state clearly: I do so with all due respect to, and appreciation for, the comment because ABOVE ALL my engagement at this time is motivated by a drive to see more people inquire, think, discuss, argue, think, learn, think and evolve in their understanding of our Government. I will do my utmost to address the points of the comment and not in any way insult the commenter, and I beg your pardon should I fail.

You can read the entire comment attached to yesterday's blog, but I will, in my (probably hopeless) attempt at brevity just reproduce points I'm answering.

So, from Mary:

You state that the Bloc is not part of the coalition and yet without the Bloc, the other 2 parties do not have the numbers to defeat the government.

Both are correct....

To me that suggests that the Bloc is an integral part of the coalition whether they hold ministerial positions or not.

Your inferred conclusion to the first two statement is incorrect. The Bloc is not part of the proposed coalition government. The proposed coalition, which would be the Government of Canada, would be a Government consisting of a Liberal PM, 18 Liberal Ministers, and 6 NDP ministers, and that is the extent of the entity that would be the coalition Government of Canada. The Bloc is not part of that. The proposed Coalition Government of Canada would indeed remain an effective minority government and would require the support of additional MPs to pass legislation as they still require approval of 50% +1 of the Members of Parliament. None of that makes the Bloc part of the proposed coalition Government of Canada any more than the Bloc became part of the Conservative Government of Canada when they voted in favour of any of the current Government's legislation this past year.

.... the Bloc has promised not to defeat the government for 18 months. That means that a coalition government has 18 months to do whatever it wants with no threat of being defeated and in a time of economic crisis.

Absolutely right, so true! And... so what? Mary, this is what EVERY government wants and by any stretch of common sense should seek to have. Every MAJORITY government has this implicitly and has it for good stretch longer than 18 months. Every minority government seeks this, in all kinds of legitimate ways, one of which is in fact to form a coalition government with another party. Another way a minority can do this is to not form a coalition government, but somehow entice sufficient non-party MPs to support them either entirely, or on a vote by vote basis (I'll skip all the guesses at methods by which they could do this). Another way a minority could do this is by placing members from other parties in bad positions by attaching a confidence motion to every vote whereby members must vote against their conscience or better judgement in order to avoid the unpopular consequence of triggering an election they're not prepared to fight for whatever reason.

I believe that is unconstitutional

Again, this is a conclusion that does not follow from your entirely correct statment of fact. It is not unconstitutional and believing it so does not make it so. One could believe the sky is pink if one wanted, I suppose.

The Bloc receives 86% of its funding from taxpayers' dollars and yet they only represent approximately 22% of Canadians.

OK, some numbers. But you haven't cited a source so I can check. But everyone, please carefully read and think about what Mary wrote. To the above I answer again... yes (I assume you have checked your facts and are correct) but ... so what? You state this like it represents something significant about the Bloc. But all you have stated are two unrelated numbers. The fact that the Bloc receives 86% of its funding from taxpayers dollars is fine. Under our current laws all parties receive tax-funded subsidies as was one of the points of contention that started this. The fact that this legal means of aquiring funds provides 86% of the funds for the BQ is great! It means they only have to raise 14% of their budget from private donors. It sounds like something entirely different is being inferred from that statistic, as if you think it is stating "the Bloc receives 86% of the tax revenues of Canada yet they only represent 22% of Canadians". That would be an entirely different (and, um, incorrect) statement.

I respectfully submit: 100% of Mr. Harper's salary as Prime Minister is funded from the taxpayer's dollars, but he only received 37% of the voters' support!

You are right that all MPs were legally elected. But you miss the point. If a majority of ridings had not elected Conservatives, then the Conservatives would not be the government and Mr. Harper would not be the PM.

A majority of ridings did not elect Conservatives. More ridings elected Conservatives than elected Liberals or NDP or Bloc or Independents, but it is still a minority of ridings - less than 50% +1 - that elected Conservatives. The Conservative Party leader was appointed Prime Minister by the convention that still holds that as the leader of the party with the most seats (not the majority of seats, just more than any other single party), he is the first choice. It is still required that the PM maintain the confidence of the House or be defeated, and if that happens other options are available in our model of Constitutional democracy.

Do you honestly believe Canadians vote with no preference for which party will be governing?

Oh, no, ma'am, I do not believe that and I did not say that. I completely think that most Canadians vote with a preference for a party. What I said was "we vote for the individuals who will represent us as Members of Parliament". That is factually true, for that is the object accomplished by casting our vote. I completely believe that each individual choice is highly likely to be informed by the voter's preference for a Party platform or ideology, and they will therefore cast a vote for the individual representative associated most closely with that. But we still do not vote for a Party, a Party not being an entity which can sit in the House and represent constituents, we vote for our representative I am on a crusade to make people understand that, because the fact that we misunderstand what our vote does and doesn't entitle us to is one of the roots of this issue.

You are wrong about the CTV not airing his response because I watched it on CTV and

OK, I have to stand corrected on this, however I admitted I was off into a rant and I have long since lost any love for CTV. Keep in mind, too, CTV may have aired it on your local station and not mine, possibly. I watched it for about an hour after Mr. Harper's address finished and was subjected to ETalk Daily and part of that dance show when I found Mr. Dion's address had already come and gone and been broadcast on CBC and many others. In re-watching captures of the CBC version, the station ID included a timestamp of 6:38 pm Central at one point - 7:38 pm Eastern, when I was most certainly stuck with ETalk Daily. So if CTV did broadcast it, I am disappointed that they broadcast it so much later than other stations and indeed, were behind YouTube.

And someone stupidly neglected to remove a book behind him that read "Hot Air" on the spine (

I'm sorry, but I just cannot see this. ANYone else? I've read the claims on some blogs, but this looks like viral rumour to me. I've just scrutinized 4 different uploads from 4 different sources and cannot see this. Where do you get this? Is it because I don't have BluRay? You did say the sound and video was poor, did someone mistakenly read the book located over M. Dion's right shoulder, the only one with big enough title text, which reads "365 Jours" as "Hot Air"? If true, someone point me at a verified, undoctored, picture of this.

If I am asking an opponent in argument ANYTHING in all this, I am asking that you check every statement you make or have someone else do so too. I am trying to do that, to my limits.

Thank you, again, for the time and effort in sharing your comments on my blog. I DO welcome you to do so and I appreciate the opportunity to hear and be heard.

Addendum....

Further to the "separatist" accusation. Disclosure: it is a link to the Liberal Party web site.

http://www.liberal.ca/video_e.aspx?guid=0FB6D5B1-3DD1-41E2-8EEA-E8D6811DBD00

However, it is not propaganda or scripted, M. Trudeau is answering some tough challenges from the media on the issue, with facts and informed opinion. Agree or don't with opinion, he is well composed and admirably quick thinking at this. I will be very interested to watch M. Trudeau's career progress.

An Assembly of Statements and Resources

Wow, can I first say I'm flattered to find myself quoted and referred to, even in a small way, for being a competent information source for this. I am far from an expert and know only a fraction of what there is to know about this current situation, but I am making a huge effort right now to be sure of my facts, and avoid the mudslinging and rhetoric that so many bloggers and commenters are falling to right now.

I would refer you (those of you who didn't arrive here FROM there) to Ms. Stephanie Pearl-McPhee's post today, about the best citizen's primer I've seen on the reality of this situation. I have a few minor quibbles with how she phrased a few things, but she is essentially correct and very insightful, one of the key reasons I'm a fan of hers (the entertaining knitting stuff is bonus, but she is foremost an informed and insightful writer).

Second, here is a web site I've been using to check some numbers: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html. Good data if you really want numbers and breakdowns, bring your own calculator.

Third, given how little most of us seem to know about Canadian Parliamentary process, the web site of the Parliament of Canada, despite having a veneer of the present Conservative party leadership, should be a valuable resource. Given that politicians, and most of the sycophantic media hackery following them, all put their spin on it, something I have found particularly interesting is The Hansard, an obscurely-named but spin-free transcript of what was actually said during debate in the house. You can read the statements of all members and decide for yourselves what is being said. Frankly, it is not hard to find our MPs telling self-serving untruths, half-truths and spun truths where it suits them. I'm finding it increasingly hard to dismiss some of these where they are doing so to launch attacks not only on other elected members, but on the Canadian public and its understanding of our democracy. (I think that more than anything is really what has galvanized me in all this).

Now, a few (mis) statements that every Canadian should be examining very closely right now, in no particular order, and not just parroting glibly to hear themselves mouth off:

That a coalition government is "undemocratic", "unconstitutional", "illegal" or any such thing. Members who have made such statements in our House of Commons have lied, in the House of Commons. To the House of Commons, and given the public records of Parliament, to the Canadian people.

That this is a "Constitutional Crisis". No, no it is not. It is a political crisis, for at least the Harper government, the Conservative Party of Canada and its members, probably for the other parties, but this is NOT a Constitutional Crisis (which would imply that one or more parties are acting to alter the nature of our government in defiance of our Constitution). Our Constitution is quite secure in all this. The options are clear. I suppose it is arguable this could become a constitutional crisis if the current Prime Minister is granted a prorogue as he is expected to request, as that would be an unprecedented response to these circumstances and outside of Constitutional convention, though not letter.

That the Coalition is a "separatist coalition" or that the Bloc is a party to the proposed Coalition (implying that the Bloc Members of Parliament would hold ministerial positions and form the Government of Canada). The Bloc has agreed to support the Coaltion, but it is a Coalition of the Liberal and NDP members of the House of Commons. And it has no separatist agenda whatsover. Nor will it support a separatist agenda - it will dissolve first, because it will flat out have broken the unity that formed it.

That, as Mr. Harper stated in his speech this past hour (I took notes) a Coalition government is a threat to Confederation. That is utter crap. The WORST POSSIBLE result of a coalition government is that it fails a confidence vote and we are back facing an election - something we will be anyway if Mr. Harper's current government fails a confidence vote and the Governor General declines to offer the chance to the Coalition. If she defers on an election and gives the coalition a chance, we will have had a chance to allow a legal and democratic Coalition government a chance to govern with a primary focus getting Canada through the current economic situation (not crisis. Note that it is also not, yet, a crisis, though it is suiting the current government and opposition to style it so).

That anything about this is "overturning" or "invalidating" the results of the October election. If you think so, you need to review my previous post about what we voted for, and what we actually elected. Every elected Member of Parliament will remain the elected Member of Parliament representing their respective ridings, unless they resign or die. That is all they were elected to. Nothing about this can overturn the result of the election because nothing about this can remove any member from their seat in the House of Commons. We did not elect the Prime Minister, we did not elect the Conservative Party of Canada, and we did not elect the Government of Canada (formed of the appointed Prime Minister and his hand-picked Cabinet). We only elected 308 Members to sit in the House of Commons, and how those 308 form the Government is not a matter of election. The fall of this particular assemblage of the Government of Canada does not overturn any election result. I have degenerated into redundancy but this point is vital.

Finally, because I received such a considered compliment and question from a web-wandering reader, I would like to respond to Heather t from yesterday's comment. She asked: "Are people annoyed that the Quebecois party is involved when they don't even want to be part of Canada? "

Heather, I need to disclose here that I feel this issue is a smokescreen being wafted around by the Prime Minister and those seeking to undermine the Coalition for political reasons. I also disclose that, due to my first statement, I'm not so deeply and recently researched into the current policies and platform of the Bloc Quebecois. I do know that the Bloc Quebecois (lets go with BQ for ease of typing) is not, in fact, part of the proposed coalition though they have agreed to support it for a set period of time. Thus, they will have no seats in a new Government of Canada (the PM and Cabinet) thus their platform and policies will not be part of the coalition's platform and policies. They do, however, need to be heeded as they can prevent the coalition from proceeding on anything by voting against its legislative proposals. Well, this is the same as they, and any other party in opposition to the sitting Government, can do now.

The BQ is a few things. They are a legal and legitimate Federal party, but have the unusual attribute of being one which will field candidates ONLY in the Province of Quebec. However, every citizen of Quebec is a citizen of Canada and has the same right as we do in any other province or territory - to elect a Member to the House of Commons. Those members sit in the House of Commons representing their constituents from their ridings. It is entirely fair for constituents in the Province of Quebec to send members to the House who have the constituents' interests in mind. The fact that the BQ won a majority of the ridings in Quebec is fine. Good job. It's no different than an independent who supports a western secession doing so. The BQ is also a party which has had, with varying degrees of priority, an agenda including the renegotiation of the relationship between the Province of Quebec and the rest of the federation which is Canada. It has been at times unclear the exact model this would take, and I'm not informed as to the particulars, currently or historically. I am pretty sure that "separatist" is a quick soundbite spun by many that is inadequate to capture the true scope of all issues. I believe, in fact, they consider themselves "sovereigntist" which is semantically different. I do know one more thing based on repeated polls, commentaries, news stories and interviews: there are lots of BQ supporters who do not wish to see Quebec wholly separate from Canada, but they support the BQ as they see it as the party which best aligns with what they see as putting Quebec first.

We last broached the issue of Quebec renegotiating its position in Confederation in 1995 with a referendum, which was voted down, and Quebec achieved no change in status though it has received many acknowledgements since, with varying degrees of substance to them, of its position as a "distinct society", culturally and politically. Stephen Harper himself did this during his first term as Prime Minister though I would need to do the homework to refresh my memory of specifics. At that time he was courting them to support his first minority government. I think now there is a feeling that he has slapped them in the face with accusatory and hostile reactions to a coalition forming which is NOT in his favour.

As to whether or not people are annoyed that they have stated support for the coalition - I do not think I can speak for the collective people. I can speak for my point of view, and I'm not in the least annoyed. The Members elected from the BQ are agreeing to a limited term of support for a coalition which does not include them, but which they feel will be better for their Members (and by extension, the constituents they represent) than is the current Harper Conservative government. They are entirely within their rights to participate in this way, and they would have been within their rights to participate in 2004 in the coalition Mr. Harper was hinting at forming at that time. They are a valid voice composed of duly elected Members of the Canadian House of Commons and they are acting appropriately in how they are participating. The perceived "annoyance" is part ignorance, part fear, and part (big part) spin on behalf of the threatened government to discredit these elected representatives and perpetuate the ignorance and fear of the less informed. I've no doubt the Conservative upper echelons are entirely annoyed, for the support of the BQ does make the coalition proposal viable as it does still require the confidence of the majority of the House. I've also no doubt many citizens of Quebec, BQ voters and not, are very annoyed at Mr. Harper for the spin doctoring and fear mongering he is doing which is misrepresenting them as a Province and electorate.

One last thing(having concluded my comments on the Bloc participation, so to all readers): I've realized I need to follow my "finally" with something of a post script and I am going to resort to ranting here just because I would like to point out to everyone that CTV NEWS BLOWS DONKEYS. They hyped up a Special Report broadcast which was to include airing of the PM's speech and then Mr. Dion's response, but apparently couldn't dare pre-empt ETalk Daily and So You Think You Can Dance to respectfully wait for the Opposition Leader's response to be properly recorded and delivered, so they dropped it. I've been sitting here subjected to CTV drivel for over an hour after they promised they would pre-empt it when they got Mr. Dion's tape only to find Mr. Dion's address come and gone and posted on-line while they returned to regularly scheduled entertainment pablum. Our media is completely complicit in promoting one-sided spin of this issue and is utterly failing the people of Canada in presenting unbiased and unhyped review of this. They are ignorantly parroting the lies, spin, and half-truths issuing from the press offices of desperate politicians and letting the information fall through the cracks. CBC, our public national broadcaster, is only just a hair less complicit in this. Sensational headlines front and centre, with reasoned commentary and factual documentation buried in the web site with less profile than ignorant, vitriolic drive-by commenters. Everyone, again, I reiterate, get off your arse, turn off the tube, and start some reading and research of the facts to inform your opinion. This is not about partisan politics any more, it is about keeping enough of a grip on our understanding of democracy to have a foundation for keeping a grip on our democracy!

Everybody, forward this to Mr. Harper!

Read it, dammit.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FOR20081130&articleId=11226

Watch it, dammit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTmNaEqMqA8

What is going on IS democracy. Get involved and get educated, or we can lose it.

Okay, Everybody - Back To Your Civics Texts, NOW!

Alright. There are very, very interesting things happening in the Government of Canada just now. Really interesting things you should get reading about.

For starters - would everyone who knows less than I do about the processes by which Canada is governed please SHUT THE FLAK UP and go read a grade 9 Civics text. I'm going to punch the next person who says the proposal to form a Liberal-NDP Coalition Government in this country is "undemocratic". It is possibly the most democratic thing any group of Canadians has done since we last held a referendum. It's about time someone got off their complacent asses and started acting democratically.

Here are a few things you need to know, and you also might need a calculator.

Only 59.1% of eligible voters voted in the last Canadian election.

Only 37. 6% of THOSE voted to elect a representative associated with the Conservative party of Canada

That means the elected members representing the Conservative party of Canada are representing 22.2% of Canadian Citizens (for those of you who didn't get your calculator like I told you to).

In other words, that means that 77.8% of Canadians did not vote for any Conservative party representation in parliament. They voted for either the Bloc, Liberal, NDP, Green or Independent representation or they couldn't be bothered to get off their butts and vote at all. Which sucks, but does not automatically default to support for the status quo either and it is inappropriate for the leading Party to assume that.

To answer the argument I got - sure, leave out the non-voters, it is still the case that more people voted for something which was not Conservative representation than voted for it. A coalition of the elected members from other parties represents more Canadians (in popular vote and seats won) than does the minority of Conservative members.

Newsflash for Mr. Harper: 22.2% is not a majority, nor does it represent the will of the Canadian people. Newsflash #2 for Mr. Harper (and the majority of Canadians, apparently): NOBODY voted for you for Prime Minister. That's right: nobody.

You see, dear readers (I know, Mr. Harper is not among you), here in Canada, we do not vote for a Prime Minister. Fellow citizens, when we go to the polls, referenda notwithstanding, we vote for one thing and one thing only: we vote for the individuals who will represent us as Members of Parliament. That. Is. IT. We do not elect a party. We do not elect a Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, nor, in fact, do we elect The Government.

There is nothing illegal, undemocratic, or unconstitutional or any other slanderous word I have heard thrown around, in a coalition of elected Members of Parliament from different parties moving to form the Government of Canada should the current Prime Minister not have the confidence of the serving Members of Parliament. And there is nothing illegal, undemocratic or unconstitutional about Mr. Dion, or for that matter Mr. Layton, Mr. Duceppe, the guy who runs my local coffee shop, a cab driver from Saskatoon, or myself, being made the Prime Minister of Canada.

For, you see, the Prime Minister of Canada is appointed by the Governor General of Canada, the representative of the Queen in Canada, and could be ANY citizen, elected or not.

It is by the convention of "Responsible Government", not election, that the Prime Minister is chosen from those elected as Members of Parliament and generally is the leader of the Party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons. Only convention. There is no law which requires it. There is nothing in our constitution speaking to it. It is simply a habit, and a pragmatic one, but it can be done differently when circumstances justify, and just such circumstances have arisen in our country right now. Mr. Harper was democratically elected ONLY to serve as Member of Parliament representing those in his riding who voted for him. He was granted the appointment of Prime minister and hence the right to form the Government of Canada (which consists of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) at the invitation of the Governor General. Maintaining that under the conventions of responsible government, however, requires the support of a majority of the House of Commons, that is, most of the elected representatves of the Canadian People have to agree to support the Government of Canada, or it is not fit to be what it is titled. Since Mr. Harper's Government has lost the confidence of the House - one of the most democratic options possible is a coalition Government formed by the elected representatives who can gain that confidence.

Now we can wander into all kinds of tangents as to what led to this and what is really best, and who among the involved parties (parties, as in individual persons, not Parties as in Political Parties) has what motivation. At the moment, that is beyond the scope of my current rant, as well as beyond the present level of my (rapidly advancing, at the moment) education in Canadian Current Affairs. But please, get off your arse and stop listening to nothing but the latest soundbites from a posse of embittered and soon to be ousted politicians and their media parrots who are glibly tossing out bald lies as insults at their parliamentary colleagues, and undermining our entire democratic system in doing so.

Some quick references:

Wikipedia on the Government of Canada and the Office of Prime Minister of Canada

MapleLeafWeb on the topic of Coalition Governments of Canada (not entirely unprecedented, in fact)

Sadly, the Government of Canada web site has more to do with spinning the agenda of the current leadership than educating the voting public about our structure and processes, but there is some of it to be found there.

If nothing else works, this is a good time to look up your high school social science/civics/Canadian history teacher and find out what you slept through....